1. See Jameson to JM, 9 March, and n. 2; Randolph to JM, 11–13 April; Pendleton to JM, 22 April, and n. 12; JM to Randolph, 23 April, and n. 5, and 4 June 1782; Account with Randolph, ca. 1 May 1782, and editorial note.

2. See JM to Randolph, 7 May; and Virginia Delegates to Harrison, 7 May 1782.

3. Instead of “essential,” Randolph at first wrote “truly important.”

4. See Randolph to JM, 10 May, and n. 12; Lee to JM, 16 May 1782.

5. Randolph substituted “their body and tendered” for his original “the house of delegates.”

6. See Randolph to JM, 5 May 1782, n. 4. The “similar occasion” may have happened in the session of the Virginia General Assembly of May 1778, when a committee including Jefferson drafted a bill to compel the attendance of senators and delegates. Although this measure contained no provision forbidding a member to refuse to serve, Jefferson may have spoken in favor of such a prohibition during the debate preceding the rejection of the bill by a close vote. This bill, now in the Virginia State Library, was docketed by Randolph. As attorney general of the Commonwealth, he very likely would have been informed of what was said in favor of and against the measure. Jefferson’s evident embarrassment in the spring of 1782, because of the pressure upon him to attend the General Assembly, probably ended when he heard that on 28 May the House of Delegates had declined to adopt a resolution “respecting resignations.” His letter to James Monroe on 20 May, arguing forcibly against the legality of denying a member of the House the right to resign, was shown by Monroe to at least some of his fellow delegates and probably contributed to the defeat of the resolution (Journal of the House of Delegates description begins Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg. Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and Held in the Town of Richmond. In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used, unless otherwise noted, is the one in which the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in 1827 or 1828, and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , May 1778, pp. 3, 21, 22; Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , II, 188–89; VI, 184–87; Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782 description begins Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782, MS in Virginia State Library. description ends , p. 55; Randolph to JM, 1 June 1782). Embittered by the efforts of his political opponents late in 1781 to have the General Assembly censure his conduct as governor and distressed by Mrs. Jefferson’s prolonged illness culminating in her death on 6 September 1782, Jefferson remained in seclusion at Monticello during most of that year (Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , VI, 187 n., 196 n.; Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 338, n. 3).

7. See Randolph to JM, 10 May 1782, and n. 3.

8. See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 188; 189, n. 6; 338; 339, nn. 2 and 3; Virginia Delegates to Harrison, 8 January, and nn. 4 and 5, and 8 February; JM to Pendleton, 8 January, and 9 April 1782, and n. 5. For Harrison’s alleged dislike of France, see Randolph to JM, 11–13 April 1782. In his letter of 6 May to the speaker of the House of Delegates, Harrison mentioned the resolution, drafted by Randolph and adopted on 2 January by Congress, requesting the legislature of each state to confiscate all British goods, if they had been imported within its limits before 1 March 1782 or brought there after being captured at sea (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 3; McIlwaine, Official Letters description begins H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond, 1926–29). description ends , III, 214, 222). For the efforts of the French to have Americans depend upon France rather than Great Britain for manufactured goods and repress illicit traffic with enemy merchantmen, see William E. O’Donnell, Chevalier de La Luzerne, pp. 238–39. According to Robert R. Livingston, “new habits and new fashions must be introduced” by diverting the long-established channel of American trade from Great Britain to France (Wharton, Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence description begins Francis Wharton, ed., The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols.; Washington, 1889). description ends , V, 73).

9. In other words, those Virginians who favored “free importation” were, according to Randolph, either so obtuse as to want it because the enemy obviously was trying to prevent it, or so “malicious” as to hold that, if the ban were imposed, Northerners would richly profit from covering large importations of smuggled British merchandise under invoices of small amounts of enemy goods legally captured by their privateers. Randolph may have counted upon JM to understand that Richard Henry Lee and Arthur Lee, who usually and for long had supported the Massachusetts leaders in their opposition to Congress’ extreme deference to France, had voiced these arguments.

10. With his letter to Randolph on 4 June (q.v.), JM apparently enclosed a record of the vote of 2 January of the state delegations in Congress on Randolph’s resolution mentioned in n. 8, above. What this tally showed is not known, because the enclosure is missing, and neither the printed journal nor the manuscript of the resolution lists the yeas and nays. Charles Thomson merely wrote “pass’d” on this manuscript (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 3; NA: PCC, No. 28, fol. 243). Nevertheless, the lines of division probably conformed with those on a very similar measure which Congress had passed on 4 December 1781. In this poll Rhode Island and every other state with at least two delegates present, except Massachusetts, voted unanimously “aye.” The sole delegate from New Hampshire voted “no” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXI, 1153). The delegate from Pennsylvania who exhibited “much disgust” may have been George Clymer, a rich merchant and banker of Philadelphia. When on 25 February 1782 the Virginia delegation had unanimously opposed a resolution to admit British goods imported in any vessel not belonging to the enemy, Clymer had voted for the measure (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXII, 96–98).

11. The governor’s letter, cited in n. 8, above, covered a number of subjects in a total of approximately 4,200 words.

12. See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 304, n. 1; JM to Randolph, 1 May 1782, nn. 6 and 7.

13. See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 295, n. 7; JM to Randolph, 1 May, and n. 8; Randolph to JM, 10 May 1782, and n. 7. From “The whole[?] mass” through “lists of the companies’ names,” Randolph was reporting in correct sequence the events of 16 May (Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782 description begins Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782, MS in Virginia State Library. description ends , pp. 45–46). In coding the first two of these four italicized words, Randolph wrote 657, the symbol for the syllable “fu,” but he probably intended to use 6. 57, the ciphers for “the intelligence.” He implied that Arthur Lee derived malicious pleasure by exposing some of his political enemies—particularly Franklin, Morris, and Silas Deane—as investors in the land companies which challenged the validity of Virginia’s title to the West.

14. Randolph may have meant that to the aristocratic Lees any act of Robert Morris, who in their view had risen from poverty to great wealth by unworthy means, was only what might be expected of a parvenu.

15. Although the cipher in the manuscript is 146, standing for “do,” Randolph probably should have written 6, the code number for “the.”

16. Here 751, the code figure for “ur” appears, rather than 571, the symbol for “ous.”

17. See nn. 13 and 14, above. The enmity of Arthur and Richard Henry Lee, as well as other influential members of the Lee family, toward Robert Morris dates from 1776–1778, when Congress’ Secret Committee of Correspondence, dominated by Morris, had mainly supported Franklin and Deane, commissioners at the court of Versailles, in their continuous friction with their colleague Arthur Lee and his friend Ralph Izard, who had stayed in Paris instead of proceeding to his post in Tuscany. The Lees’ prominent allies were John and Samuel Adams and Henry Laurens. This factionalism, often a divisive influence within Congress, basically stemmed from opposing positions on important domestic and foreign issues but was exacerbated by charges and countercharges of financial dishonesty (Clarence L. Ver Steeg, Robert Morris, pp. 22–27, and nn.). Aggrieved by Congress’ tepid approval of his services in France, its delay in authorizing the payment of his overseas’ expenses, its refusal to heed his charges against Franklin, and its deferential regard for Morris, Lee struck back by accusing the superintendent of finance of malfeasance in handling public funds (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , II, 142–43, and n. 1; 154; 217; 218, n. 2). Morris’ statement of his expenses was a mystery to JM, as it is to the present editors (JM to Randolph, 4 June 1782). For JM’s comment upon Arthur Lee’s conduct, see JM to Randolph, 4 June, and 2 and 23 July 1782.

18. See Harrison to Virginia Delegates, 9 February, and nn. 3, 4; Virginia Delegates to Harrison, 25 February, and n. 3; 19 March, n. 1; JM to Randolph, 9 April, n. 4; and Motion on Supplies for Southern Army, 7 May 1782. Colonel Edward Carrington brought assurances from Morris that the contract system for supplying food to the continental army would be extended “as far southwardly” as possible. This pleased Governor Harrison. On 15 May the governor recommended that the General Assembly assist Morris by agreeing to receive for taxes “the notes he may issue to enable him to fulfil his contracts” (McIlwaine, Official Letters description begins H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond, 1926–29). description ends , III, 224–25). The Assembly adopted this suggestion on 1 July 1782 (Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782 description begins Minute Book, House of Delegates, May 1782, MS in Virginia State Library. description ends , p. 85; Hening, Statutes description begins William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (13 vols.; Richmond and Philadelphia, 1819–23). description ends , XI, 68–69). In the 18 and 25 May issues of the Virginia Gazette description begins Virginia Gazette, or, the American Advertiser (Richmond, James Hayes, 1781–86). description ends , Carrington invited bids for the award of contracts to supply rations.

19. As shown by the remainder of the paragraph, “the measure” was the resolution mentioned in n. 8, above. The letter from Lee and Randolph has not been found. The “four great points” were probably those stated by Randolph in his letter of 16 May to the speaker of the House of Delegates—namely, the “prospect of peace,” the “state of our army and navy,” the “history of our finances,” and the “temper of congress with regard to Virginia” (Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VI, 352). Lee had attended Congress from 19 February to about 24 April 1782 (Jameson to JM, 2 March, n. 8; JM to Randolph, 1 May 1782, n. 3).

20. Randolph wrote the cipher for “thirteen” instead of “a.”

21. Randolph wrote “propriety” and then deleted it.

22. See Harrison to Virginia Delegates, 23 March 1782, and nn. 1, 2; McIlwaine, Official Letters description begins H. R. McIlwaine, ed., Official Letters of the Governors of the State of Virginia (3 vols.; Richmond, 1926–29). description ends , III, 215. Article IX of the Form of Government of Virginia stipulated that the governor “shall, with the advice of a Council of State, exercise the executive powers of government according to the laws of this commonwealth; and shall not, under any pretence, exercise any power or prerogative by virtue of any law, statute, or custom, of England” (Hening, Statutes description begins William Waller Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619 (13 vols.; Richmond and Philadelphia, 1819–23). description ends , IX, 115). This emphatic prohibition barred the governor from controlling the Court of Admiralty, but Harrison evidently assumed that, even though the Form of Government contained no article defining the method of amendment, the General Assembly, with the sole power under Article XIII to appoint or remove the judges of admiralty, could delegate to him the authority requested (ibid., IX, 117). This the General Assembly declined to do. Perhaps it came to this decision the more readily because of Governor Nelson’s recent “usurpations” and the baffling constitutional problems involved in the present issue (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 325, 326, n. 3).

23. Written over a deleted “day.”

24. In his De bello civili (Pharsalia), Book I, line 135, Marcus Annaeus Lacanus (A.D. 39–65) used the words, Stat magni nominis umbra (“The mere shadow of a mighty name, he stood”), when describing the fading genius of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (106–48 B.C.) by about 50 B.C.

25. See Lee to JM, 16 May, and n. 7; Randolph to JM, 21–24 May, and nn. 5–9, 15; JM to Randolph, 4 June 1782. Although the Articles of Confederation included no mention of ships flying flags of truce, it conferred upon Congress the power to make war and peace. This grant of authority presumably permitted the employment of all devices, including flags of truce, customarily resorted to by a belligerent. Richard Henry Lee, who less than a year before had even advocated a suspension of portions of both the Articles of Confederation and the Form of Government of Virginia for the duration of the emergency (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , III, 157–58), probably welcomed the constitutional issue in the present instance primarily as a weapon with which he again could attack Robert Morris (Ambler to JM, 20 April, and n. 4; Lee to JM, 16 May 1782, and n. 7).

26. After “in,” Randolph wrote and deleted “order of.”

27. James Hayes, Jr. See Jameson to JM, 26 January 1782, and n. 5.

28. Hore Browse Trist (ca. 1778–1804). See Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , II, 92, n. 8. Randolph had roomed in Philadelphia at the home of the boy’s parents and grandmother, Mrs. Mary House. Jefferson, who often befriended the family, appointed Hore Browse Trist in November 1803 to be collector for the district of Mississippi and inspector of revenue at the port of Fort Adams on the Mississippi River (Boyd, Papers of Jefferson description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950——). description ends , X, 167, 611; XI, 178–79; Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, VI [1924–25], 215; Brant, Madison description begins Irving Brant, James Madison (6 vols.; Indianapolis and New York, 1941–61). description ends , IV, 194, 500 n.; Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States, I, 454–55, 464).

29. Isaac Parrish (1735–1826) had been a Philadelphia hatter at least as early as 1749, when he was apprenticed to the trade following the death of his parents (Susanna Parrish Wharton, comp., The Parrish Family [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania] … [Philadelphia, 1925], pp. 44, 51). He numbered George Washington among his customers (Pennsylvania Archives description begins Samuel Hazard et al., eds., Pennsylvania Archives (9 ser.; 138 vols.; Philadelphia and Harrisburg, 1852–1949). description ends , 3d ser., XIV [1897], 187; Fitzpatrick, Writings of Washington description begins John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Sources, 1745–1799 (39 vols.; Washington, 1931–44). description ends , XIV, 128, 129 n.; XXX, 254 n.; XXXVII, 96).

30. Probably Randolph’s Virginia friend, John Hatley Norton (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (4 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , I, 318, n. 15), whose business firm was now located in Philadelphia. See Frances Norton Mason, ed., John Norton & Sons: Merchants of London and Virginia … (Richmond, 1937), pp. 446–48.